Gondring, you are not stating the problem correctly. No, I am not asserting violations vanish on exit from office. I have no idea why you would say that. I am saying that a violation not discovered during the term of office falls outside the rule of applicability, and unless it is chargeable under an explicit exception to the applicability rule, or is chargeable under some external law, such as federal criminal law, then the opportunity to complain about that violation is lost. Just like you can only be caught speeding while driving. You can be ticketed later, but you can’t be “caught” later. You know this is true.
As for your question about AS 39.52.240, I think you misread the relationship it has with AS 39.52.250. Section 240 is, to use a software analogy, reusable code. Section 910 establishes the default behavior that the code will apply only to current officers, and excludes former officers, unless an explicit exception is made. Section 240 is how advisory opinion logic would work for current officers, and sits properly under the rule of 910. Whereas 250 is the carve-out for former officers that must be stated per 910, but if you look close it points back to 240 as the guide to how advisory opinions should work for former officers. The “programmer” is just reusing the code. There is no “parallelism,” as you put it.
Therefore, the carve-out in 250 still stands as the explicit exception that proves explicit exceptions are required to be stated. The complementary principle then must be true, that all provisions of the Ethics Act not so modified by exception must refer only to current public officers, including the discovery provision in the statute of limitations.
No, we don't at all know this is true.
Let's say I drive through a work zone that has a traffic camera and radar display sign on it, and there's video of me going through there with the sign displaying 95 where the work zone is 35 mph limit, and it shows me smashing into the barrier and getting carted off to the hospital. In most states, it's not like they review the footage and say, "Shoot! He's out of office..uh, I mean, 'no longer driving'...so we can't catch him and charge him with speeding!"
Are you saying it's different in Alaska?